If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Since you're just going to troll your way into not answering legitimate questions, would you like me to find the times Kyle had to field this question and gave an answer? I'm sure there's at least one, which quickly went the way giving an answer to that question would be predicted to go.

Does your position change once its allowed to be fully acknowledged that that 2003 team was 3 homegrown pitchers, half a season of a homegrown CF, and then a whole lot of outside talent?

Or just this:

Also: 75 wins is based on yet another thing made up and put out as a legitimate point and fact. There's no actual science or math in that, someone just said buying FAs make this team a 75 win team and somehow that was allowed to be treated as legitimate.

I actually just used 75 as an arbitrary number based on nothing at all. If the cubs had 3 pitchers of the Wood, Prior, Zambrano category or even 3 players on this team with that sort of potential and talent I'd be fine trying to add free agents to it. They also had Aramis Rameriez who they stole from the pirates. If they wanna go steal another player I'm fine with that too.

Since you're just going to troll your way into not answering legitimate questions, would you like me to find the times Kyle had to field this question and gave an answer? I'm sure there's at least one, which quickly went the way giving an answer to that question would be predicted to go.

I actually just used 75 as an arbitrary number based on nothing at all If the cubs had 3 pitchers of the Wood, Prior, Zambrano category or even 3 players on this team with that sort of potential and talent I'd be fine trying to add free agents to it. They also had Aramis Rameriez who they stole from the pirates. If they wanna go steal another player I'm fine with that too.

1. I know it was arbitrary and based on nothing. Hence me bringing that up.

2. They have two of this completely arbitrary three - Castro and Rizzo. Not only that, but as positional talents they're far safer long term bets than 22 year old pitchers.

While zero AB's were turned in by "home grown" players, we did have plenty of AB's turned in by proxy of our minor league system. It was Bobby Hill (drafted by Cubs) who was dealt for Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Lofton. Sammy Sosa had essentially been here for life and was dealt for in the early 90's for a home grown talent. Alex Gonzalez was traded for by giving up a minor leaguer (home grown) and Felix Heredia. Also, don't forget, the opening day 1b was Hee Seop Choi, who was home grown and was doing fair well.

And then you had our playoff SP, which included Prior, Wood and Zambrano, all of whom were home grown, on top of Matt Clement, who was traded for using minor leaguers.

You can attribute a good chunk of the 2003 Cubs success to their own home grown talent, either by actual contribution on the roster, or by trade. 100% of the SP IP in the playoffs were turned in directly by pitchers who were drafted by the Cubs, or, by means of trading for players using prospects...drafted by the Cubs.

Let me know when those two put up 10 WAR together in a season and I'll agree that they are of the same calibur

Ah, we need the gift of hindsight before the Cubs can move. That's totally out of the realm of possibility for Castro and Rizzo, therefore the Cubs should sit still until they develop talent that can do that. I get it now.

Number of times Prior/Wood/Zambrano did that together: twice.

# of times they did that without one guy bringing more than half of that value: once.

Went with rWAR since I just happened to have it open on the 2003 roster.

The rotation peaked in '03, never coming close to that again. By '05, Zambrano was peaking, Wood was on the way out of the rotation, and Prior was bringing the sad.

Gato: I've never seen you ask that question personally, that said......I WANT the Cubs to bring in core members NOW. Where we differ is in the "who", not the "when". If possible, I'd love to get a Delgado, Casey Kelly, Mike Olt, Martin Perez, etc type(s) this offseason. As for how long you wait on Castro/Rizzo? Again, theres no clear answer there. It depends on the next wave of moves obviously. I think our disagreement centers on the ages of what we want added here. You want the 28-30 year old additions now(not trying yo put words in your mouth, but thats what I'm getting out of this) while I want the 22-25 year olds added now. Let them play and let them dictate when the major spending begins. Could be 2014, could be 2015. I've obviously got more confidence in this than you do. I guess I look more at their track record and your group looks more at the Cubs and others past in attempting this. It's certainly not that I want to never spend big, I'm just wanting to pick my spots because we're not conceivably close right now. Ask me this time next year, I may be clamoring for big signings by then, dependent on how some of our group plays in 2013.

Was he? I stand corrected, could have swore they traded a prospect. Anyways, beside the point.

And yes, acquiring MLB talent is a good thing, you've never seen anyone post anything against that idea. However, to acquire MLB talent, you first need a minor league system able to, not only deal for that MLB talent, you need an minor league system that can also sustain the hit of trading that minor league talent.

Sadly, the Cubs have neither right now. All of their talent is in A ball or lower which is a recipe for overpayment (as in, sending far too much). Other teams want players in higher levels - they're safer. Secondly, even if we were able to blow our wad and get (insert high level player) right now, you'd have little to nothing left to make any supporting moves and really run the risk of killing the system. Trade the wrong combination of A-ball prospects, and you may only be left with the ones that were going to burn out. It's safer to have high level prospects, as well, it's safer to trade them. Our coffers are finally beginning to fill again. Blowing it this early, to me, seems silly. Especially when our MLB roster doesn't feature Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Carlos Zambrano, Sammy Sosa and Moises Alou which is what that team already had when they went trading for Ramirez, Lofton, Clement, Alfonseca, and Gonzalez. Our team has much less then that, both in the minors to support those trades, and in the majors to back those trades up with a winner. We're not devoid, just in my opinion, not at the correct time to make the moves necessary to sustain major MLB talent acquisition through trading right now.

Should we look into trades? Yes. Should we venture and explore all opportunities? Yes. I'm not saying to ignore MLB talent. But you need to make smart trades, and ones in which you're not gutting yourself. What I'm saying is, I don't think the team's in place to make a play on J.Upton or Price via trade, but I do think a Lonnie Chisenhall type of a trade is possible. And something I'd be a fan of.

What makes those guys core talents besides age and hype? Olt is a 24 year old glove and power 3B with a questionable hit tool who probably needs to spend some time in AAA. Delgado, Kelly, and Perez are nice arms who need plenty of work themselves. I would welcome any of those players to the Cubs so you're not any different there. The team still needs more than maybes.

Let them play and let them dictate when the major spending begins.

Castro's been a strong talent for 3 years now. Rizzo looked polished and very talented upon his callup this year. How much more do they need to dictate? They need to make this a .500 team by themselves before it's OK? "The" major spending is not how I see it...a major spending makes more sense, since it would be doubtful this is last time they spend some money.

I still want answers on the core questions. Core is such a big deal for you guys, but no one can tell me what it is, whether it's rigid or fluid, and so on. I think the most important question I asked there centered on Barney - a clearly solid player making pennies for the time being.

Also, nothing specific on how many constitutes a core? Or how long a core should be expected to be together?

Kyle: Name 5 teams that had less talent than the Cubs throughout their organization heading into 2012.

Houston, San Diego, Minnesota, White Sox, Colorado. I'd say Oakland and Baltimore too, but I don't want to have to have the argument that their fluky seasons (which almost any team can have) proves that they had more talent than thought.